Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by buddy

Making movies that his satisfy his own desires for a movie, spaghetti westerns, revenge flicks, samarai films, rather than taking an audience into account with something like character development. And, i don't care if the movie is over two hours, but if you're going to jerk yourself off maybe keep it under two hours. Just me, though.

This makes a little more sense. You don't like the direction he went after Jackie Brown and that's a fine comment to make but you lost me on character development. I see a full fleshed out story in each of these movies and i'm missing where he is sacraficing character development for masturbation. Flesh out your argument a bit and give us specifics. Which characters did you not learn enough about at the cost of this self gratification? Also, how are you defining this masturbation beyond just his homage to spaghetti westerns and revenge flicks?

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by faxman75

This whole post is a mess. You understand that Jackie Brown came after Pulp Fiction, right? but it gained sudden popularity without review and this was the first movie where Quentin transitioned from artist to pop film maker...

You do a terrible job of explaining your thoughts.

Are you focused on the point, or did you totally miss it? I'm down to see about anything he releases, within reason, based on the two movies he's made that will still matter thirty years from now. Does it really matter which one came first? I just assumed PF came out first, because I remember all the ads circulating for it back in the day, but I hardly remember any mention of Jackie Brown. That actually makes me further appreciate the importance of Jackie Brown. Reservoir Dogs was a good start, with Pulp Fiction efficiently wrapping up the whole gangster genre, and Jackie Brown taking it into a new dark alley of sorts. Random People have little appreciation for his work, and he's releasing his films in hopes of drawing in those same Random People knowing that his real fans will go regardless. I'll go check out Django this week, now that all of the people who just wanted to say they saw it first have already gone. Time for some film appreciation.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Are you focused on the point, or did you totally miss it? I'm down to see about anything he releases, within reason, based on the two movies he's made that will still matter thirty years from now. Does it really matter which one came first? I just assumed PF came out first, because I remember all the ads circulating for it back in the day, but I hardly remember any mention of Jackie Brown. That actually makes me further appreciate the importance of Jackie Brown. Reservoir Dogs was a good start, with Pulp Fiction efficiently wrapping up the whole gangster genre, and Jackie Brown taking it into a new dark alley of sorts. Random People have little appreciation for his work, and he's releasing his films in hopes of drawing in those same Random People knowing that his real fans will go regardless. I'll go check out Django this week, now that all of the people who just wanted to say they saw it first have already gone. Time for some film appreciation.

Originally Posted by faxman75

You do a terrible job of explaining your thoughts.

Ad-nauseum.

Originally Posted by guedita

The childless 20-something year olds on the board who find a 50 something year old man fucking teenage prostitutes distasteful will probably change the hum of their tune once they produce babies, definitely. That's the missing link.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by faxman75

This makes a little more sense. You don't like the direction he went after Jackie Brown and that's a fine comment to make but you lost me on character development. I see a full fleshed out story in each of these movies and i'm missing where he is sacraficing character development for masturbation. Flesh out your argument a bit and give us specifics. Which characters did you not learn enough about at the cost of this self gratification? Also, how are you defining this masturbation beyond just his homage to spaghetti westerns and revenge flicks?

It's not the direction I dislike it's that I feel he's made the same film over three times. The characters seem simply tools of revenge, with more effort given to the stylistic violence than who these characters are, and why we should care about them. Maybe he did a better job with Kill Bill. But, the point was made regarding the trailers, and what you should expect. I was just expecting more, which was my mistake.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Tarantino's characters usually have a great deal of depth. The exceptions to this are Death Proof (my hatred of which has been sufficiently covered here) and Inglourious Basterds, which I found mostly exhilarating but ultimately his second-worst movie. Which is a testament to how good he can be and usually is. I'm hoping Django reverses course.

Originally Posted by guedita

The childless 20-something year olds on the board who find a 50 something year old man fucking teenage prostitutes distasteful will probably change the hum of their tune once they produce babies, definitely. That's the missing link.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by schoolofruckus

My problems with Looper are identical to my problems with Inception. They're both primarily action movies that drastically over-explain their admittedly clever premises, and take the science out of sci-fi by choosing to engage with their ideas exclusively via simplistic genre tropes (the Bond-derived dream settings in Inception, the time-travel-as-device-for-mob-vengeance-only here) rather than scenarios that require actual imagination or intellectual complexity.

Excessive use of exposition or not, I just thought the whole thing was kind of hair-brained. I was actually pretty on-board with it until it got to the kid being the Rainmaker part, and the dramatic sequences/special effects that went along with it. It got unstomachably cheesy at that point.

I was, however, massively impressed by Flight. I can't honestly say that I'm pulling more for Denzel to win an Oscar than Philip Seymour Hoffman at this point, but they both turned in equally remarkable performances in my book and I'd be happy if either took home the prize. And I had really hopped ship as far as Denzel goes some time ago, I think it was after that god awful Deja Vu. But he was absolutely fantastic in this, and the film as a whole was fantastic as well.

And John Goodman absolutely killed me. The most I've laughed at a role of his since The Big Lebowski for sure.

"Hey everyone, it's me, 2015. I read all of your posts about the War On Drugs topping 2014 album of the year lists, and honestly I was a little weirded out by it too. So, here's a shitload of huge albums right up front to avoid that kind of situation again. Cool? Cool."

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Saw Django today; fucking loved it. Tarantino with a brilliant, bloody spin on the endless Django narrative. I love all of the throwbacks to the westerns, with the fast zooms, the sheepskin jacket, and Franco Nero's amazing cameo. I was laughing out loud at points, (Waltz, Leo, and Foxx delivering awesome performances) and the scenes of violence against slaves were brutal.

I had a blast though. The Rick Ross track had my head bobbing; all the music was great to be honest. Especially the original Django theme song.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by TallGuyCM

Excessive use of exposition or not, I just thought the whole thing was kind of hair-brained. I was actually pretty on-board with it until it got to the kid being the Rainmaker part, and the dramatic sequences/special effects that went along with it. It got unstomachably cheesy at that point.

I was, however, massively impressed by Flight. I can't honestly say that I'm pulling more for Denzel to win an Oscar than Philip Seymour Hoffman at this point, but they both turned in equally remarkable performances in my book and I'd be happy if either took home the prize. And I had really hopped ship as far as Denzel goes some time ago, I think it was after that god awful Deja Vu. But he was absolutely fantastic in this, and the film as a whole was fantastic as well.

And John Goodman absolutely killed me. The most I've laughed at a role of his since The Big Lebowski for sure.

Maybe check out Fallen, if you haven't already. Denzel and Goodman versus a Rolling Stones loving demon. Good shit.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Just watched Looper. Thought the concept was actually alright, definitely less feather-headed and fucked up than Inception. The ending though was completely baffling. So, the Rainmaker kid wasn't Joseph Gordon-Levitt/Bruce Willis, right? Looper meant he saw the future in that he saw that if Rainmaker's mother was killed by him then Rainmaker would end up running away in the same fashion he had to and thus would be bitter enough to spend the future killing Loopers? 'Cause it made things rather confusing and for a second sounded like he was saying he is the kid, which doesn't make much sense.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Yeah I don't know that it was inspiring by any means but it was definitely less shitty than Inception which committed one of the most egregious acts of just completely bailing on the rules of the world they'd established in order to create a heightened tension that didn't need to be there. Plus I kinda dig the idea of murder being so difficult to get away with in the future that you have to send victims back to the past, that actually makes some sense in a weird way. All the shit about "closing the loop" was just bizarre though. Why the fuck do the people who employed these loopers give a flying fuck about killing you thirty years from now exactly?

Originally Posted by amyzzz

Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang

Yeah I don't know that it was inspiring by any means but it was definitely less shitty than Inception which committed one of the most egregious acts of just completely bailing on the rules of the world they'd established in order to create a heightened tension that didn't need to be there. Plus I kinda dig the idea of murder being so difficult to get away with in the future that you have to send victims back to the past, that actually makes some sense in a weird way. All the shit about "closing the loop" was just bizarre though. Why the fuck do the people who employed these loopers give a flying fuck about killing you thirty years from now exactly?

I agree that it's less shitty than Inception. Watching Inception the second time through was like hammering nails of exposition into my skull for 2 hours.

"Uninspiring" means I finished Looper and went... "uh huh". I'll have to watch it again to see if I like it any better.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Yeah I definitely don't feel particularly compelled to watch it ever again. It was a nice idea, I was initially annoyed at how they just side step the paradox issue but then kinda pleased by it. Paradox problems in time travel stories have just gotten insanely irritating. As soon as the Rainmaker kid comes into play though I found myself really annoyed with Joseph Gordon Levitt. "Are you fucking kidding me? SHOOT THAT KID IN THE FACE."

Originally Posted by amyzzz

Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Got that Bond 50 set for Christmas. Very excited to start watching these again, yet I know that excitement should be tempered by the fact that I'm going to put myself through seeing Moonraker and Die Another Day again. On the flipside, I have the Star Trek Original Movie series on blu, and I still haven't had the heart to watch Star Trek V.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

God help me, watching Take This Waltz on Netflix this weekend caused me to have an orgy dream about Seth Rogen. I couldn't have a dream involving Michelle Williams or the other cute guy, it had to be Seth.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

My gf and I watched two movies on NYE (we're so exciting): Harold & Maude and Conan The Barbarian (yes, the original). Both have excellent soundtracks. Also, outside of voicing the most famous movie villain of all time, James Earl Jones should have played more villains in his career.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

The movie about a world where Dinosaurs never went extinct sound's beyond promising. Especially with the director of Up behind it. I am already incredibly excited about that one. A Pixar film about Dia de los Muertos sounds like a wonderful idea as well. Thank god they aren't going forward with that rumoured Toy Story 4. I absolutely loved Toy Story 3, but to make a 4th would have been a shame.

Originally Posted by bmack86

And it's been long established that Chris hates fun.

Originally Posted by Hatinisbad

I took my niece this year and it was her first Coachella. It was so fun to see it through her eyes. She thought it felt like a magical scene from Shreck. The one where all the fairy tale creatures meet for the first time in Shreck's swamp.

Re: Schoolio's Movie Corner

Saw Contagion this weekend. Great film but the ending left me a bit unsatisfied. Anyone else really dig the soundtrack? Kinda Reznor-ish.

Originally Posted by amyzzz

God help me, watching Take This Waltz on Netflix this weekend caused me to have an orgy dream about Seth Rogen. I couldn't have a dream involving Michelle Williams or the other cute guy, it had to be Seth.

Sounds like you have those type dreams a lot.

Originally Posted by TomAz

Hey here's an idea. You know those people who are desperately poor, down on their luck, uneducated, abused, and generally ill-equipped for life? Let's make fun of them.